Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065

The Blinding Strength of Material World:

A Marxist Reading of Henrik Ibsen’s Play ‘The Wild Duck’

Nauman Khan

Research Scholar (M.Phil)

Department of English

The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

Bahawalpur, Pakistan

Dr. Asif Khan

Lecturer

The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

Prof. Dr. Maimoona Ghani

Professor, Department of English

The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

Breya

Research Scholar (M.Phil)

Department of English

The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

Bahawalpur, Pakistan

http://www.ijellh.com 523 Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065

Abstract:

For Marxists, the superstructure of social, political and ideological realities is built upon economics. For them, economic power always includes social and political power. They also assert that all human events and productions can only be understood in relevance to their material circumstances. They explain all human activities in terms of economic power distribution. The current study intends to verify Marxist aforementioned postulates through extensive analysis of Henrik Ibsen’s play The Wild Duck. It sets to verify the classist values and the role of ideologies in shaping human social and political activities.

Keywords: socioeconomic power, classism, ideology, economic privation

Introduction:

Clarion, the London journal proclaimed Henrik Ibsen to be the greatest genius among dramatists of nineteenth century (as cited in Siddall, 59). Ibsen’s canonization is referred to as an ‘admitted grand master of European literature’ (Shaw, 5). He is regarded as an author of nineteenth-century social problem plays, The Wild Duck being notable amongst them besides A Doll’s House, Ghosts, Hedda Gabler. The Wild Duck (1884) is a tragi-comedy (Shaw, 76) that was written to instill that ‘truth should be told for its own sake’ (Shaw, 122). The play unveils the domestic spheres of two families, each corresponding to one of the two plots of the play. The Werles being wealthy merchants and industrialists belong to the Bourgeoisie class, however the Ekdals belong to the proletariat class. Hakon Werle exercises his economic power to exploit the lives of Ekdals that brings a sea change to their peaceful and prospering lives towards utmost destruction.

The present study intends to verify the Marxist perspective that differences in socioeconomic class divide people to such an extent that real battle lines are drawn between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (Tyson 54). It also tends to show that the human experience, culture

http://www.ijellh.com 524 Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065 and ideology are the outcomes of the material and economic factors and that the lower-class and underclass poor are effectively oppressed by classism ideology.

Research Methodology

The study is based upon the exhaustive analysis of the text in the light of Marxist perspective. The study intends to prove its basic proposition that economics is the base of all human activities and their experiences (Tyson, 66) along with the classes they belong to, as they have been portrayed in The Wild Duck. The Marxist dogma that dominant social class and their material interests determine the way people see their existence (Seldon, Widdowson, Brooker, 92) is also verified and propelled by the study. It also sets to prove that economics is deeply linked to the belief system of a culture. The following research questions are designed to make the study intact and targeted:

I. Is Hakon Werle able to control and administer the Ekdals? Does he practice the economic power? II. Is the tragedy of Ekdals an outcome of Classism? III. Does the economic power always include social and political power? IV. Does the play reinforce or undermine the capitalism?

Discussion and Analysis

Hakon Werle and His Dynamic Socioeconomic Existence

Hakon Werle, an affluent merchant and manufacturer throws a grand dinner party in honor of his son Gregers Werle. At that particular party, the best and only friend of Gregers is also invited, namely Hjalmar, son of Old Ekdal, a retired lieutenant. In previous times Old Ekdal and Hakon Werle were best comrades and the two of them were together in a business partnership. The sharp contrast rests among these two sets of friends and their economic conditions, due to which Hjalmar is hurled at with discontent remarks from Hakon Werle for being present at the party. Hakon expresses his displeasure by enquiring in a depressed tone that was Hjalmar’s presence noticed by anyone ‘I don’t think anybody noticed it, Gregers’, ‘We were thirteen at table’, ‘We are usually twelve at table’ (i. 77) and by excluding him from the list of gentlemen

http://www.ijellh.com 525 Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065 attending that party by stating: ‘Come along in here, gentlemen’ (He leads the way out through the inner room, and is followed by all the others except Hjalmar and Gregers.). Further, Hjalmar is subjected to criticism by Hakon’s guests who mock at him for attending the party without any effort for one must contribute in a way that he is then received thankfully. One of the guests referred to Hjalmar that his case is that of a ‘struggle for existence’ (i. 82). For it is such a mockery owing to Hjalmar’s historical circumstances that it leads him to wince. It is his underclass that is being mocked at and it hurts him deeply for he states that ‘But I don’t believe your father likes it. I never come to the house’ (i. 78).

Mrs. Sorby the housekeeper of Werle household addresses the guests that: ‘Then it is just the same with all you gentlemen in official positions; you all like to bask in the sunshine of Court favour.’ (i. 82). This refers to the doings of the socioeconomic class and exercise of their power and wealth.

It is at seeing Old Ekdal that Hakon gives an involuntary exclamation of disgust. As per the Classism ideology, Hakon equates Old Ekdal’s value as a human being with the social class he belongs to. ‘The higher one’s social class, the better one is assumed to be’ (Tyson, 59). There is no other reason for Hakon’s disgust at seeing Old Ekdal besides his classist’s pride, because Old Ekdal is to be accused for nothing. It was never him going against the mighty aristocrat Werle, for he knew his historical situation and circumstances to be so meager to stand against Werle the noble. He exclaims this to Gregers that it was an unfortunate thing for him that he was once ‘A great deal too intimate’ (i. 85) with Old Ekdal and besides this he has been paying for it for many years. He accuses Old Ekdal for ruining Hakon’s name and reputation (i. 85).

It is in this party that Gregers come to know that his Friend Hjalmar in the near past was left without a single penny, worse than that ‘there were debts’ most of them owed to Gregers’s father, for it was his father who provided for him to learn photography and set him up in a studio, in addition to settling the circumstances for him so he could marry (i. 79).

Hakon and Old Ekdal were partners in a business deal that was set for big purchase of timbers. Both of them were equal contributors towards the purchase however it was Old Ekdal who was imprisoned for breaching the forest laws from government property. Ekdal was

http://www.ijellh.com 526 Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065 subjected to imprisonment because Hakon levied the entire blame on Ekdal’s shoulders by proving it that it was he who formulated the misleading map for illegal felling off the timber. Whereas the Court acquitted him or in other words he got himself acquitted off the whole mess with quite an ease- it may be argued that he must have had practiced his historical circumstances, exercised his socioeconomic power to veil the truth- and thus there were no proofs against him to prove him guilty. The aforementioned statements are accentuated because it is his very own son who is suspicious rather he believes that his father must have exercised his socioeconomic powers for his acquittal and thus hurled the Ekdals to utter disgrace because Old Ekdal was sentenced to imprisonment and so he suffered the blemishes and was generally accused in the society (i. 85, 86). Gregers knows his father well therefore he enquires him off the whole incident as if he wants to scrutinize it all by himself. He also accuses him for the wretchedness the Ekdals are imposed with, to suffer due to his unfair usage of socioeconomic power.

Werle accuses his son for working so hard at their business and refusing to accept a penny more than the ordinary wages and commenting that it is a mere folly on his account (i. 88), which further reflects a classist’s pride. When he proposes to offer partnership in the firm to Gregers, he is criticized severely by him. For Gregers think that his father never do dealings for free and that there must be something at the bottom of such an offer by him. Owing to his father’s mindset and dealings in general, he suspects that the offer must have come out of an intention to use him in some way (i. 88, 89). So this is Werle’s very own son who knows his father very well and thus accuses him of his exercising the economic powers.

Ekdals and Their Economical Privations

The household of Ekdals is a miserable one, quite contrary to that of Werle’s. Hjalmar is committed with devoting his life to redeem his father’s name from the blemishes brought on it by imprisonment. He is to put into effect the redemption by becoming famous as a great inventor someday. Each member of this household lives an illusionary life. They all engage themselves in petty activities and their merriments are also that of some simpleton sort. For Hjalmar, they are poverty stricken, thus there is no room for pleasures in his life as he is surrounded by host of cares (ii, 98). The only source of his happiness is his only daughter Hedvig.

http://www.ijellh.com 527 Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065

When Hjalmar returns from the party at Werles’ household, Hedvig asks for the food which he has promised to bring home to her. This exhibits the economical privations of the Ekdals. The dress which Hjalmar wears to the party is also a borrowed one. The basic necessities of life that is food, clothing and shelter are what they are dependent for through borrowed means. The place where they dwell is provided by Werle, the occupation (photography) through which they earn their living is also settled for them through Werle’s support. Therefore Gregers was just in exclaiming the fact to Hjalmar that Hakon Werle had been ‘a sort of providence’ to them.

Gina, wife of Hjalmar was also an outcome of providence of Werle. She is a fallen woman as she was sexually abused by Werle and he was able enough to release himself again of the dirty business at the expense of his economical power. His socioeconomic power enables him to replace the burden of Gina from his own shoulders to Ekdals’ as Gregers exclaims that: ‘The last of them was this woman that was foisted upon Hjalmar Ekdal when you were tired of her’ (i. 90). However the Ekdals are unaware of this fact until Gregers himself intervenes and explains the reality to Hjalmar.

Hedvig, the only daughter and source of happiness for Hjalmar was also foisted upon him by Werle. She is an illegal child of Gina and Werle and this reality does not dawns upon Hjalmar till the end of the play. The birth of an illegitimate child was the cause that Werle arranged for Gina Hansen and Hjalmar to get married.

Werle employs Old Ekdal for copying work and pays him indirectly through Graaberg, a bookkeeper in Werle’s hosehold. However it is not in the interest of Werle to employ or pay Ekdal, it is a scheme for indirectly supporting Gina and Hedvig, for Gina is the one to whom Graaberg sends Old Ekdals’s pay to (ii, 94). Werle later sends this news for Ekdal that in the future he is to receive five pounds a month that will be transferred to Hedvig after his death. This benevolent act of Werle was not merely out of his good will for the Ekdals however it was out of sense of duty to provide for those, whose miserable lives are the direct outcome of his wrong doings and his exercise of socioeconomic power.

The Economically Privileged and the Economically Oppressed

http://www.ijellh.com 528 Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065

Hjalmar exclaims it to Gregers at his party that Old Ekdal, his father is ‘poor’, ‘unfortunate’, and has ‘not another creature in the world to cling to’. Whereas Gregers while talking to his father exclaims this to him that they must discuss things between them there and then for they may never find themselves alone: ‘We may never find ourselves alone’ which refers to the notion that while they have economical stability, and they keep on throwing luxurious parties, people are most likely to accompany them all the time, for they are not poor that they will be left alone.

Hjalmar confesses this to Gregers that ‘When Fate has dealt a man such a blow as it has done to me, you know-’ without realizing the fact that it was not Fate rather Werle’s exercise of his socioeconomic power against him and his family. It was the dominant social class exercising its socioeconomic power against the poor.

Conclusion

The cornerstone of the whole argument is that for Hjalmar, Werle provided for him and never did he forsake his old friend’s son in the day of trouble (i. 88) however the reality is in a stark contrast to what Hjalmar thinks. Werle with his economic power and historical circumstances abused the lives of his fellow men. It is with his economic power that he has blinded the eyes not only of Ekdals but many others (iv, 141). Thus the play accentuates that the material circumstances quite effectively provide for the society the blinkers to view things with, under the weight age of material circumstances. This play is a critique of the capitalism and classism. It condemns the socioeconomic forces and repressive ideologies by exhibiting the miseries of Ekdals and their undue sufferings.

http://www.ijellh.com 529 Volume II, Issue VIII, December 2014 - ISSN 2321-7065

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik. The Wild Duck. Trans. Sharp, R. F. and Marx-Aveling, E. London: Everyman’s Library, 1958. Print.

Seldon, R., Peter Widdowson, Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley, 2005. Print.

Shaw, G. B. The Quintessence of Ibsenism By Bernard Shaw. New York, 1913. The University Press, Cambridge: Rosings Digital Publications. Web. 27 October, 2014.

Siddall, S. H (2008). Ibsen and Shaw. Humanities Insights: Henrik Ibsen: A Doll’s House (pp. 59). Web. 26.10.2014

Retrieved from:

Tyson, L. (2006) Critical Theory Today. London: Routledge. Print.

http://www.ijellh.com 530